| Welcome to Godlimations. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Evolution | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: 26 Oct 2009, 01:13 PM (796 Views) | |
| ARAZEC | 6 Nov 2009, 03:34 PM Post #106 |
This Person Has No Life
  ![]](http://209.85.117.197/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
its nice you get a kick outta science,cause God created lots of things to explore... however the things you are claiming happened that you have not observed are so improbable maths scientistics say the odds are almost nill -look at the complex human brain compared to the blob that you say decided one day for no reason to split into two and "seal its self " animals mutating usually means its inferrior rather than better equipped for its enviorment hence the billions of years you gotta stretch this out over to get 1 lucky mutant to survive to reproduce.... theres not good odds even if you whack on double the billion years you got now  plus theres too many holes and a lot of dissagreement and whats the motive? |
|
OTTOR never BE SORRY | |
 |
 
|
| Concolor | 6 Nov 2009, 04:39 PM Post #107 |
Death
|
Thanx for appreciating my rant ARAZEC  but either you weren't paying close attention, or I failed to explain these bits clearly enough.I will make another attempt  It is important to remember that there are very few things in science we can observe directly with our own senses in our own lifetime. That is what I tried to illustrate with my example of how time moves slower at the bottom of the empire state building than at the top. We can't sense that, but we can measure it. Likewise we can't touch the stars to feel how warm they are, we need to rely on spectroscopic measurements and theories for how temperature is correlated with wavelength of emitted light. We can't shrink ourselves down to measure the atoms, but we can use information from microscopy-techniques to observe them through the means of electrons and theories for scattering and interference. We cannot travel back in time to observe each and every individual that has been a part of the development towards us, but we can use biological observations combined with fossil records to gain an understanding of how this process has occurred. Then you're math professors have a different opinion than mine. I would like to see those calculations you are talking about and the assumptions they are based upon before assessing if I think they are correct or not. If you are talking about the probability of evolutionary processes to happen, then the answer is that they are the same as the probability of a rock falling towards the ground if you drop it (that means rather high). If you are talking about statistics for a series of events to occur then do tell, because I would love to rant in length about details of statistics I think are important to know in such a debate. I'm having problems understanding this sentence. The human brain is complex, yes. Why are we comparing it to a primitive cell billions of years ago? And who said anything about this organism "deciding" anything. If anything I would emphasize that these organisms were far away from anything that could even resemble conscious thought. You say "no reason". Where does that come from? Does a rock fall for no reason? Does a radioactive atom decay for no reason? Splitting into two is basically what this organism does provided it has enough nutrients and survives for long enough to do so. That doesn't mean it does so on the basis of a thought process. Round objects roll around if they are free to do so, that doesn't mean they decide to roll or even decide to be round. And I don't know what you mean by "seal its self". Are you pointing to a specific part of a suggested pathway for cell division? If so, then see may statement about the splitting. No, mutations are usually indifferent with respect to the animals adaptation towards it's current environment. A mutation can happen in a part of the genome which is not currently used in the development of the animal (often called "junk DNA") or it could give an actual effect which is insignificant or has little effect (such as giving a different eye-color etc.). Such genetic drift may not affect the animals in which they occur, but they may play a role for their descendants if they meet new environments or use slightly different parts of their genomes due to genes being switched on/off. Some mutations ARE in fact affecting an animals chance of passing on it's genes (such as a slight decrease of a hunting animals night-vision), this is one of the things that forms the very basis of the natural selection process, where such genes have a lower probability of propagating to the next generations. Then again, some mutations are beneficial (such as a slight increase of night-vision), this will give these genes a higher probability of propagating to the next generations. This is the very thing that gives evolutionary processes direction, and explains why evolution is NOT A RANDOM UNDIRECTED PROCESS. I didn't force this process to take billions of years any more than i forced light to move at light speed I don't really understand this one, but I hope my rant on mutations clarifies any potential misconceptions. Yes there is. If you disagree we should talk more closely about statistics and probabilities. What do you mean by "holes"? Do you mean the fact that we haven't personally met every single one of our ancestors? (<-- This may be a straw-man, I'm getting myself worked up a bit here.) We have yet to observe Pluto making a single turn around the Sun as the time for it to complete one lap is hundreds of years and we haven't observed it for that long. Yet we still claim to know with a sufficient high level of certainty that Pluto orbits the Sun. Why? Isn't there a gaping hole here with all the "missing data" we haven't found since we haven't waited for Pluto to make a full turn yet? If we use the theories we've produced from our observations of other celestial bodies and employ them to Pluto, our conclusions are that Pluto does orbit the Sun. Likewise our observations from the field of Biology combined with other observations such as the fossil record leads us to the conclusion that our ancestor's history is roughly something like the one I outlined. Between whom? And about what? I've overheard two professors loudly disagreeing on the importance of UV-absorbance in silicon. That does not mean that modern band-theory of semiconductors is wrong. I've heard a physics professor claim that the second law of thermodynamics is a natural law, even though he should know better. That does not mean that he is right, or that thermodynamics is invalid. I've heard from a friend of mine that he doesn't believe people have landed on the moon. That doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about. The vast majority of scientists hold the theory of evolution by natural selection to be at least as well founded as other theories such as the theory of gravity or electromagnetics. Oh, and evolution itself is of course not a theory but an observable biological fact. What we are discussion now is the appliance of the theory of evolution by natural selection to make a record of our ancestor's history. What motive? The motive of me telling the story is to answer you question. The motive of using the theory to make a timeline of ancestors is to explain our origins in a way that is the most compatible with the amassed observations and knowledge we have accumulated so far. The motive for making the theory was to account for and explain the diversity observed in nature and to provide an explanation for the mechanism for evolution. The process of evolution has no more motive than gravity has. |
 
| |
|
|
|
| ARAZEC | 7 Nov 2009, 03:47 AM Post #108 |
|
This Person Has No Life
|
yawn.....gravity was created so WE could live on Earth This world was created FOR people !!!! you me we are NOT merely products of some mindless purposeless process evolution that can be observed are changes to the same kind as God created every kind there are no new kinds just species....this sounds familiar.... anyway you have theories and measurements and limited observation its all with a how this or that "might" have occured you are having problems answering my question comparing a blob to the human brain so you ask why i am asking just answer me or say you dont know But while your at it could you please explain how A BLOB OF CHEMICALS evolved sense of humour? |
|
OTTOR never BE SORRY | |
|
|
|
| Concolor | 7 Nov 2009, 06:35 AM Post #109 |
|
Death
|
@ARAZEC: For some reason I get the feeling that you start with an assumption that this and that must be true BEFORE you examine the evidence. Science works the other way around. FIRST you look at the evidence, then you ask "what conclusions can we draw from this?". And not "Let's ignore some of these facts as they don't fit with the assumption we made before we found these facts."YES! Exactly! That is the whole point! We are limited beings and all our channels of information have limitations. That is exactly why we need science! Science is the method for examining all our observations while taking into account their fallibility. Science allows us to extract the useful information and then continually improve our knowledge. Science is the best way we have discovered to continually correct our mistakes and move forward to a better understanding of the universe I'm having problems answering your question because I don't understand it. The difference between your "blob" and the human brain is that the first is a primitive organism that lived billions of years ago, and the second is a part of an animal that is the result of billions of years of an directed process that has pushed forth gradual improvements through a well understood mechanism that has been observed to do just so through countless experiments and observations. How is this relevant to the discussion? Okay ARAZEC. Either you are being sarcastic now, or you have not tried to understand a single one of my posts in this entire thread. I try to understand your posts even if it's hard, that's why I keep asking you all those annoying questions. If you really mean this question as a serious one, then you should have stopped me way before I even started these rants, so we could take things more slowly. The whole point is that the blob of chemicals did NOT evolve a sense of humor! (I'm probably displaying my lack of that very sense of humor by getting so upset about your question, but anyway) The blob of chemicals died billions of years ago, and the only contribution it made was to leave offspring. This offspring, through the mechanism of natural selection, had a higher probability of being more fit for the environment than their parent. This does not mean that any of them actually were (it's probability we're talking about here), it might have taken hundreds of generations before any improvements were made. But over the course of time, the descendants of this blob were better adapted to their environment in comparison to their forefathers. And through the many intermediary steps I drafted in my first long-ranting post back there, the continuous pressures of natural selection had directed one branch of the many descendants into humans, with a brain, and sometimes a sense of humor. Just remember that other strands, such as the one that is currently represented by bacteria, have had an equal amount of evolutionary time to develop. They demonstrate that being more complex, or having a brain, is not a universal criteria for success. Those little guys can still kill us (even if we can fight back). |
|
| |
|
|
|
| ARAZEC | 7 Nov 2009, 05:00 PM Post #110 |
|
This Person Has No Life
|
well i am really sorry Concolor but i cant help if my questions sound like that. It does not explain traits such as Humour in humans? |
|
OTTOR never BE SORRY | |
|
|
|
| Concolor | 7 Nov 2009, 05:39 PM Post #111 |
|
Death
|
Well, I suspect that your questions would sound less like that if you tried investigating what evolution really is  An explanation of humor in humans would usually invoke fields such as psychology and possibly neurology, maybe cultural studies and anthropology, sociology etc. If you want to explore how humor developed in humans could perhaps rely more on use of historical studies, archaeology and yes possibly evolutionary psychology or even plain old evolutionary biology (not to forget other field in biology of course). But let me ask you one question: Do you for some reason expect the theory of evolution by natural selection to explain everything? Because a scientific theory is only meant to describe a certain field. As an example: We don't use the theory of gravity to explain colors. There are also loads of stuff the theory of evolution by natural selection does not explain. It's only meant to explain the diversity of life and the mechanism behind this. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| ARAZEC | 8 Nov 2009, 09:38 PM Post #112 |
|
This Person Has No Life
|
i realise your knowledge of science beleif system cant tell you where you are going ,why you are here and what your purpose is
|
|
OTTOR never BE SORRY | |
|
|
|
| conradw | 9 Nov 2009, 02:14 AM Post #113 |
|
Mud Vile
|
I am going to a lecture. I am here because I haven't gone yet and I want to be educated. done. |
|
|
|
| ARAZEC | 9 Nov 2009, 07:57 AM Post #114 |
|
This Person Has No Life
|
you mean you plan to go to a lecture, you are here because God made you for relationship with himself and others and your purpose is the discovery and experiance of abundant joy in fufilling your God given potential for Kingdom purposes undone *a want isnt a purpose 
|
|
OTTOR never BE SORRY | |
|
|
|
| Concolor | 9 Nov 2009, 10:04 AM Post #115 |
|
Death
|
My approach would be different. Yes, we can ask for a purpose, but that does not mean a purpose exists. I can ask for a togglesmurf, but they don't exist. And if it does exist, who has said that purpose cannot come from ourselves or others like ourselves? |
|
| |
|
|
|
| conradw | 9 Nov 2009, 11:28 AM Post #116 |
|
Mud Vile
|
Can't we give ourselves purpose? also, if I ever get an avatar, it will be a togglesmurf. |
|
|
|
| Concolor | 9 Nov 2009, 02:56 PM Post #117 |
|
Death
|
You already have one! My purpose is to eat things that are small enough to put in my mouth and slow enough not to get away. I can give you a purpose. If I'm hurt your purpose can be to make me better again. You may not think these are good purposes, but they sure are purposes. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| ARAZEC | 9 Nov 2009, 04:42 PM Post #118 |
|
This Person Has No Life
|
you mean make you feel better on purpose? purposefully inspiring passionate emotion of the platonic kind maybe.... negative emotion can be the biggest catalyst for change *side rant* Anyway ! sure you can give yourself purpose on purpose you may be effective and happy for a while the true purposes are eternal and not temporal and as a creation of God your purpose is linked to your spiritual gifts Gods purposes never change but mans minds change reguarly so if you make up your own purpose you will quickly reverse it for want of foresight to anticipate everything or lack of foresight to execute it -no change in Gods eternal purpose is implied when he begins to deal with man in a new way |
|
OTTOR never BE SORRY | |
|
|
|
| conradw | 9 Nov 2009, 05:07 PM Post #119 |
|
Mud Vile
|
Okay, I'll bite... what's god's purposes? (i know i'm like a lamb amongst wolves with this one) |
|
|
|
| Concolor | 9 Nov 2009, 05:18 PM Post #120 |
|
Death
|
Thanx for the support ARAZEC
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate · Next Topic » |
3:02 AM Nov 27
